DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on July 6, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 6 and 13 are amended, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 17-23 are cancelled, and claim 24 is new, resulting in claims 6, 13, 15-16, and 24 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figuly (US 2023/0303725) in view of Zhang (CN 114481352)1,2 and Poe (US 2020/0199323)2. Supporting evidence provided by Textile School2.
With respect to claims 13 and 15, Figuly teaches alginate-based polymers and products such as fibers (paragraph [0002]). The polymers have an alginate backbone (paragraph [0079]). Any suitable alginate cationic salt can be used to make the polymers of the invention, however in embodiments the polymers are made using sodium alginate (paragraph [0079]). The alginate is ionically crosslinked with at least one multivalent crosslinking agent to attach dicarboxylate to the alginate backbone (paragraph [0123]). One specific crosslinking agent used is calcium chloride (paragraph [0126]). The fiber shape and size will vary by application but can be as low as 0.1 denier per filament (dpf) (0.011 tex) or smaller and as large as 300 dpf (33 tex) or larger (paragraph [0134]). For many textile applications the fiber will have a dpf of 0.1 to 30 (0.011-3.3 tex) (paragraph [0134]).
The linear density range of Figuly substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 13. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Figuly, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Figuly further teaches fabrics made of the fibers, including knitted, woven, and non-woven fabrics (paragraph [0137]). The fabrics can include blends with other types of fibers and filaments such as wool (paragraphs [0137], [0139]). The filament and fiber staple blends can include at least about 40 weight %, at least about 45 weight %, at least about 50 weight %, at least about 55 weight %, and at least about 60 weight % of the other fiber (paragraph [0139]). The skilled artisan will readily recognize the desired sizes and other properties of those fibers (paragraph [0139]).
Figuly is silent as to the alginate fiber being an aerogel fiber with a plurality of pores having an average diameter from 100 to 250 nm.
Zhang teaches aerogel fibers (paragraph [n0001]). The polymer solution may include sodium alginate or nanocellulose (paragraph [n0046]). The aerogel fibers are full of air and have low thermal conductivity (paragraph [n0018]).
Poe teaches an aerogel structure such that the majority of the pore volume in the aerogel is made up of macropores (pores having a size greater than 50 nm in diameter). It has been found that the presence of macropores can help facilitate the manufacture of aerogels as macropores are larger than meso- and micropores and less likely to collapse during the drying stage, resulting in a more economically efficient and less complicated drying process (paragraph [0006]). Additionally the presence of macropores can improve the flexibility, strength, gas permeation and/or the strength to density ratio of the formed aerogels (paragraph [0006]). The high porosity in aerogels can confer a number of useful properties including high surface area, low refractive index, low dielectric constant, low thermal-loss coefficient, and low sound velocity (paragraph [0004]).
The pore size range of Poe substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 13. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Poe, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the alginate fiber of Figuly to be an aerogel fiber with macropores with a pore size of 50 nm and above, in order to provide an fiber with improved thermal conductivity, flexibility, strength, gas permeation, and/or strength to density ratio.
Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe does not explicitly teach the aerogel fiber having a diameter of 15-20 microns. It is known in the art that the relationship between a fiber’s diameter (D), fineness (Tex), and density is represented by the following equation from Textile School:
PNG
media_image1.png
86
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where k is a constant estimated as 0.04 (2.1 Yarn Diameter (D)). As described above, Figuly teaches the claimed material and the claimed linear density and the fiber of Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe is an aerogel fiber with the claimed pore size. Since the Figuly teaches the same material, linear density, and pore size, it is reasonable to presume the density of the prior art aerogel fiber will be similar to the claimed aerogel fiber. Therefore, since k is a constant and Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teach the same linear density and density as the claimed invention, it is reasonable to presume that the diameter of the aerogel fiber of Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe is within the claimed range.
Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach a fiber tenacity of 15-20 cN/tex, and an elongation at break of 3 to 20%. It is reasonable to presume that the tenacity and elongation at break are inherent to Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe. Support for said presumption is found in that Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches the same structure as the claimed invention, as described above. Additionally, Figuly teaches that the products of the invention possess and retain excellent properties such as elasticity, resilience, and tenacity, making them well-suited for many applications, including textile fibers and films (paragraph [0129]). Exemplary elongations at break range from 6.6-7.4% and exemplary tenacities at break range from 1.78-2.49 g/den (15.7-22.0 cN/tex) (Table 1). Therefore, the fibers of Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the textile having a thermal resistance between 9-25% higher and a weight 24-36% lower as compared with an equivalent textile consisting of wool. It is reasonable to presume that the thermal resistance and lower weight is inherent to Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe. Support for said presumption is found in that Figuly, Zhang, and Poe teach the aerogel fibers have low thermal conductivity and thus are suitable for thermal insulation (Zhang, paragraphs [n0059], [n0061-[n0064]). Poe further teaches that the aerogel fiber is lightweight (Poe, paragraph [0104]) and therefore will necessarily have a lighter weight when used as a replacement for the heavier wool. Additionally, as described above, Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches the structure of the claimed invention. Therefore, the fabric of Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 16, Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above. Figuly further teaches the yarn and fabrics can be blended with fibers such as those made of cotton, animal materials, regenerated celluloses, compostable polymers, protein based materials, and synthetic fibers (paragraph [0139]).
With respect to claim 24, Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above. Figuly further teaches the fabrics can include blends with other types of fibers and filaments such as wool (paragraphs [0137], [0139]). The filament and fiber staple blends can include at least about 50 weight % of the other fiber (paragraph [0139]). The skilled artisan will readily recognize the desired sizes and other properties of those fibers (paragraph [0139]).
Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the textile having a thermal resistance between about 16-17% higher and a weight about 29% lower as compared with an equivalent textile consisting of wool. It is reasonable to presume that the thermal resistance and lower weight is inherent to Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe. Support for said presumption is found in that Figuly, Zhang, and Poe teach the aerogel fibers have low thermal conductivity and thus are suitable for thermal insulation (Zhang, paragraphs [n0059], [n0061-[n0064]). Poe further teaches that the aerogel fiber is lightweight (Poe, paragraph [0104]) and therefore will necessarily have a lighter weight when used as a replacement for the heavier wool. Additionally, as described above, Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches the structure of the claimed invention. Therefore, the fabric of Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figuly (US 2023/0303725) in view of Zhang (CN 114481352)3,4 and Poe (US 2020/0199323)2 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Oh (US 2018/0179073)2.
With respect to claim 6, Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above.
Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe is silent as to the aerogel fiber comprising hydrophobic alkylsilanes, aliphatic esters, or a combination thereof grafted on an exterior surface of the aerogel fiber.
Oh teaches a silica aerogel containing blanket using minimal amount of surface modification agents which has low thermal conductivity and excellent flexibility by forming an aerogel having high hydrophobicity and excellent physical properties, in particular high porosity (paragraph [0002]). The base material by be subjected to a hydrophobizing treatment such as surface treating the base material with a compound including a hydrophobic functional group such as alkyl silane (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surface modify the aerogel of Figuly in view of Zhang and Poe with one of the compounds described in paragraph [0060] of Oh, which includes alkylsilane, in order to provide the aerogel with hydrophobicity.
With respect to the selection of alkylsilane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the list of compounds in paragraph [0060] of Oh, which includes alkylsilane, in order to determine which provides the desired level of hydrophobicity. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
The rejections of:
claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 105970325) in view of Zhang (CN 114481352) and Whiffen (US 2016/0219926);
claim(s) 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 105970325) in view of Zhang (CN 114481352) -and Whiffen (US 2016/0219926) and further in view of Oh (US 2018/0179073);
claim(s) 11-12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 105970325) in view of Zhang (CN 114481352) and Whiffen (US 2016/0219926) and further in view of Poe (US 2020/0199323); and
claim(s) 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 105970325) in view of Zhang (CN 114481352) and Whiffen (US 2016/0219926) and further in view of Wu (CN 111850729)
have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed July 6, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Machine translation used as reference
2 Previously presented
3 Machine translation used as reference
4 Previously presented
